Marc Garneau

[Ethics, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this morning Saulie Zajdel was arrested on five charges from fraud to corruption. This is the person best known as the failed Conservative candidate and then the paid shadow MP in Mount Royal where fraudulent Conservative calls took place, which you yourself called reprehensible, Mr. Speaker.

This was a highly paid senior adviser to the heritage minister. Did the background check on this person not reveal any wrongdoing as alleged by the Montreal police today?

[First Nations Elections Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across has spoken about the need to incrementally wean ourselves from the Indian Act. I am in favour of getting rid of the Indian Act now, biting the bullet and making all the necessary changes that we need to do. Why is there this incremental approach? Why is it going to be stretched over possibly decades, as opposed to attacking this situation which is unacceptable now and going much further than what is being proposed?

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we want to clarify something on this side of the House, as we have done for several other bills in recent weeks. What we want to tell this government is that some bills introduced many years ago have been delayed for reasons that are quite clear.

For example, in September 2008, the Prime Minister decided to call an election. At that time, no one was expecting an election. Obviously when this happened, everything slowed down and we were forced to start from scratch.

I will use the example of Bill S-2, which was first introduced as Bill C-47. The Conservatives were forced to reintroduce it as Bill C-8. What happened to Bill C-8? In December 2009, Parliament was prorogued, so we had to start again.

These are the kinds of delays caused by this government. This bill was then replaced by Bill S-4, and the Conservatives sat on their hands for seven months. In May 2011 it was reintroduced as Bill S-2. Two years went by while the Conservatives did nothing. Suddenly, in June 2013 it became absolutely urgent to pass this bill because it had been on the order paper for so long.

The fact is that this situation is a direct result of their delays—

[Privacy, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the CSE has been monitoring Canadians' personal communications raises a lot of questions. How much monitoring is acceptable? Who has access to that information within Canada and abroad? When should that information be automatically destroyed? Who is watching the watchers?

Canadians' privacy is at risk. When will Parliament examine this important issue?

[Privacy, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are worried about the fact that the government has been giving CSEC access to metadata from their personal communications since 2011. Our privacy is at risk, and Parliament needs to talk about this.

Why did the government, which claims to be so concerned about protecting Canadians' privacy, get rid of the long-form census? Why is the government not protecting Canadians and why is it allowing this spying?

[Ethics, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the government wants to show us that cheque today. Why is it not doing so?

Can the government tell us that it is doing everything in its power to ensure that no document will be destroyed, including Senator Duffy's February 20 email? When will the government turn over that information so that we can put an end to this scandal and give Canadians a chance to see all of the documents for themselves?

[Ethics, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly a month since Nigel Wright wrote Mike Duffy a cheque for $90,000.

Since then, the government has been blocking attempts to get at the real story. They say that it was simply a private transaction between friends.

Canadians are not buying it. They know that it was a botched attempt to prevent a Senate expenses audit and put an end to a political crisis for the Prime Minister.

When will we see a copy of the $90,000 cheque?

[Ethics, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister learned that Nigel Wright wrote a cheque for $90,000 to “protect taxpayers”, why did he not tell him that he absolutely should not have done that and that Mike Duffy had to pay his own fine the same as everyone else or have his pay docked?

Why was that not his reaction? It was certainly the right thing to do. Is he afraid of Mr. Duffy?

[41st General Election, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Peter Penashue resigned for the simple reason that Elections Canada was investigating his election expenses. In the case of the two Conservative members, Elections Canada informed this chamber that they do not have the right to sit in the House. However, there they are in their seats.

When will this Prime Minister order these two Conservatives to leave the House until such time as they obey the law?

[41st General Election, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Elections Act is explicit, and I quote: “An elected candidate who fails to provide a document as required by [subsection 463(2)]...shall not continue to sit or vote as a member until they are provided”.

Today, two Conservatives have not provided these documents and are therefore not allowed to sit in the House. Tonight we will be voting on the estimates. Is the Prime Minister seriously going to allow the member for Selkirk—Interlake and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance to vote illegally on over $65 billion?